ENGLISH VERSION
Although Caravaggio was involved probably more than once in disturbances that led to death, it is perhaps unfair to characterise him as a murderer, as Keith Sciberras describes him in his article 'Caravaggio 'obbediente' in the June Burlington Magazine. The brawl that occurred on the 28th May 1606 was evidently an affray that involved several people (as many as eight), in which Caravaggio and his friend Petronio Troppa (formerly Capitano di Castello) were injured, both almost fatally. One of the eyewitnesses said that it started with a slap on the face, another that Tomassoni provoked the painter 'a far seco questione', and this followed an incident at a game of tennis a couple of days before. The presence of Ranuccio's brothers-in-law (also banished as a result) introduces an element of honour to the affray. Van Mander reported (from earlier than the famous encounter in the Vicolo di Pallacorda) that Caravaggio went from one ball game to the next, very ready to duel and get into brawls, but we know from other third party accounts that he was very difficult to befriend, a cervello stravagantissimo who did not get on well with other people, and sought out the company by nature 'brigosi' as Baglione tells us. Mario Minniti found him too torbido and contentioso to be with, and according to his biographer Susinno married in order to get away from his friend. Since we can see that one of his principal claims to fame was that he saw things differently from other people, we should not be surprised that he found it difficult to get on with them and that he needed 'protection' by people like Prospero Orsi, Onorio Longhi, and then powerful patrons like Del Monte and the Mattei. In any case the Tomassoni brawl was with more than one of these huomini brigosi, with a less than perfect reputation in the neighbourhood. Such a fatality would not have been regarded as an omicidio colposo or murder, but could well have been seen as an omicidio casuale, which did not necessarily result in sanction, so his eventual pardon was quite realistic, despite the bando capitale that was published against him (a month after the event). Another detailed account of the affray, one that is not featured in Macioce's excellent compilation of the documents relating to Caravaggio (as Francesco Tresoldi wrote online in 2009 as comment to gialli.it.lomicidio-di-ranuccio-tommasoni) is that of Francesco Maria Vialardi, who apparently reported on 3 June 1606 to Maffeo Barberini,

Although it has not been possible so far possible to identify the source of this letter, it is consistent with the other reports and confirms that Caravaggio was not the aggressor, that Tomassoni challenged the painter, and wounded him. Tomassoni tripped taking a step backwards, when Caravaggio's sword thrust actually reached his opponent, with fatal consequences, Ranuccio must have bled to death, he had barely time to confess his sins before expiring. Seeing this unexpected injury Tomassoni's brother Captain Gio: Francesco then badly wounded Caravaggio and left his supporter Petronio for dead. While the cause of the encounter has always been associated with the Via di Pallacorda and the ball-game that was played there, the Vialardi letter says that the affray took place at Ranuccio's house 'da casa del medesimo Ranutio', which was actually by the Pantheon; other accounts speak of his death 'alla Scrofa'; his parish was evidently that of the Pantheon, where he was buried. The other accounts (see S. Corradini, Caravaggio, materiali per un processo Roma 1993, p. 70-72) make it abundantly clear that the artist was provoked, and he himself 'restò su la testa mortalmente ferito'. More details of the affray were in fact published recently by Mgr. Sandro Corradini, in 'L'incidente della pallacorda: un omicidio "preterintenzionale" ? Nuova luce sulla rissa tra Caravaggio e Ranuccio Tomassoni' in Una vita per la storia dell' arte, Scritti in memoria di Maurizio Marini, ed Pietro di Loreto, Rome, 2015, p. 123-31.The characterisation of the four Tomassoni brothers as the bully boys of the neighbourhood is also quite evident from Luigi G. De Anna's book (Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio e l'Ordine di Malta, ed La Rondine, University of Turku - Finland, 2011) , and a more recent article by the same author 'I fratelli Tomassoni, i veri persecutori di Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio' (Studi di storia medievale per Giovanni Cherubini, ed. D Balestracci et al., Siena 2012, v. I, p. 519-531). R. Bassani's article (L'omicidio di Ranuccio Tomassoni per mano di Michelangelo da Caravaggio', in Rivista storica del Lazio, I, 1993, n. 1, p. 87-111), and his and F. Bellini's book Caravaggio Assassino (1994) were important steps in this evaluation of the milieu in which Caravaggio found himself in the Campo Marzio, where he had recently taken up residence in the Vicolo San Biagio. Gio: Francesco' Tomassoni had been named a year earlier capo Rione, and these authors have amply demonstrated that their gang were used to enforcing their interests. The Tomassonis, sons of a high ranking military officer from Terni, were not only able to take into custody Petronio Troppa after the affray but also to secure, a month later, the banishment of Caravaggio's other supporter Onorio Longhi, who did not get it lifted to return to Rome until 1611, and the bando capitale on the painter in absentia. Their authority in the rione did not stand in the way of such bullying, indeed this was the nature of their role as pimps in a quarter of Rome in which the cortigiane were confined by statute, and their connections ensured that not only would Caravaggio be subject to a capital sentence, but also that he would never again have a tranquil existence.

As Prof De Anna recognised, not only on the continent, but in England there were laws that identified this kind of event as one of chance medley, even when it was the result of a duel, like when in 1765 the 5th Lord Byron killed his cousin William Chaworth (who survived long enough to describe their duel in a closed room as an 'unfortunate accident'). Lord Byron was found guilty only of manslaughter and released, for there was as strong a tradition of this version of 'homicide arising from a sudden quarrel or fight' in England as there was under Roman law. Given the documentation it is fanciful to assume that this was a formal duel or, as some have suggested, that Caravaggio was seeking to castrate his opponent when he stabbed him in the groin. It does seem as though Caravaggio's nature was apprehensive and he found it hard to get through a day without some sort of challenge, prompting people to attack him just as he seems to have attacked others, for motives that still remain a mystery. Rather than characterising him as a murderer, it is time to reflect on how he saw the world differently, because this change of perception was his chief legacy. Of the Tomassoni brothers the pimp Ranuccio was one who had not borne arms or had military experience, while Giovanni Francesco was a very experienced soldier who lashed out at the artist after he had scored the hit on his brother. It was evidently mere chance that it was Ranuccio who got the mortal blow, while the near fatal wounds that his other opponent, Caravaggio's supporter, Petronio Troppa, (as well as those the artist himself sustained) meant that he could not get away from the scene. Mgr Sandro Corradini uncovered documents showing that Ranuccio's widow Lavinia Giugoli abandoned their three-year old daughter to the care of one Cesare Pontoni, a lawyer friend of Ranuccio's from Camerino, who had always shown 'no little love and benevolence' towards the child, while the mother was considering (eight days after her husband's death) getting married again. Her brothers Ignazio and Federico had also participated in the affray, and were banished at the same time as Caravaggio (17th July 1606), so it does look as though the honour of Ranuccio's young wife could have prompted the affray as much as a difference over a ball-game.

It is still remarkable that the Knights of Malta were so anxious not to lose the painter when he eventually arrived in the island, it speaks volumes of Caravaggio's manifest talents, while the connections the Tomassoni had in high places had meant that he could never again sleep quietly. It was not the authorities in Malta, or even in Rome that stood in the way of his pardon, but the vendetta of these malviventi. Nearly a century ago the psychologIst Mariano Luigi Patrizi described Caravaggio as Un pittore criminale - ricostruzione psicologica (1921) without actually exploring the psychological aspects of his case, merely perpetuating the myth of a violent man, which has become almost a caricature.We do not get any closer to understanding the difficult character that Caravaggio undoubtedly possessed by continuing the negative profile that these people inevitably underscored, for their own purposes.

Clovis Whitfield

Although Caravaggio was involved probably more than once in disturbances that led to death, it is perhaps unfair to characterise him as a murderer, as Keith Sciberras describes him in his article 'Caravaggio 'obbediente' in the June Burlington Magazine. The brawl that occurred on the 28th May 1606 was evidently an affray that involved several people (as many as eight), in which Caravaggio and his friend Petronio Troppa (formerly Capitano di Castello) were injured, both almost fatally. One of the eyewitnesses said that it started with a slap on the face, another that Tomassoni provoked the painter 'a far seco questione', and this followed an incident at a game of tennis a couple of days before. The presence of Ranuccio's brothers-in-law (also banished as a result) introduces an element of honour to the affray. Van Mander reported (from earlier than the famous encounter in the Vicolo di Pallacorda) that Caravaggio went from one ball game to the next, very ready to duel and get into brawls, but we know from other third party accounts that he was very difficult to befriend, a cervello stravagantissimo who did not get on well with other people, and sought out the company by nature 'brigosi' as Baglione tells us. Mario Minniti found him too torbido and contentioso to be with, and according to his biographer Susinno married in order to get away from his friend. Since we can see that one of his principal claims to fame was that he saw things differently from other people, we should not be surprised that he found it difficult to get on with them and that he needed 'protection' by people like Prospero Orsi, Onorio Longhi, and then powerful patrons like Del Monte and the Mattei. In any case the Tomassoni brawl was with more than one of these huomini brigosi, with a less than perfect reputation in the neighbourhood. Such a fatality would not have been regarded as an omicidio colposo or murder, but could well have been seen as an omicidio casuale, which did not necessarily result in sanction, so his eventual pardon was quite realistic, despite the bando capitale that was published against him (a month after the event). Another detailed account of the affray, one that is not featured in Macioce's excellent compilation of the documents relating to Caravaggio (as Francesco Tresoldi wrote online in 2009 as comment to gialli.it.lomicidio-di-ranuccio-tommasoni) is that of Francesco Maria Vialardi, who apparently reported on 3 June 1606 to Maffeo Barberini,

Although it has not been possible so far possible to identify the source of this letter, it is consistent with the other reports and confirms that Caravaggio was not the aggressor, that Tomassoni challenged the painter, and wounded him. Tomassoni tripped taking a step backwards, when Caravaggio's sword thrust actually reached his opponent, with fatal consequences, Ranuccio must have bled to death, he had barely time to confess his sins before expiring. Seeing this unexpected injury Tomassoni's brother Captain Gio: Francesco then badly wounded Caravaggio and left his supporter Petronio for dead. While the cause of the encounter has always been associated with the Via di Pallacorda and the ball-game that was played there, the Vialardi letter says that the affray took place at Ranuccio's house 'da casa del medesimo Ranutio', which was actually by the Pantheon; other accounts speak of his death 'alla Scrofa'; his parish was evidently that of the Pantheon, where he was buried. The other accounts (see S. Corradini, Caravaggio, materiali per un processo Roma 1993, p. 70-72) make it abundantly clear that the artist was provoked, and he himself 'restò su la testa mortalmente ferito'. More details of the affray were in fact published recently by Mgr. Sandro Corradini, in 'L'incidente della pallacorda: un omicidio "preterintenzionale" ? Nuova luce sulla rissa tra Caravaggio e Ranuccio Tomassoni' in Una vita per la storia dell' arte, Scritti in memoria di Maurizio Marini, ed Pietro di Loreto, Rome, 2015, p. 123-31.The characterisation of the four Tomassoni brothers as the bully boys of the neighbourhood is also quite evident from Luigi G. De Anna's book (Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio e l'Ordine di Malta, ed La Rondine, University of Turku - Finland, 2011) , and a more recent article by the same author 'I fratelli Tomassoni, i veri persecutori di Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio' (Studi di storia medievale per Giovanni Cherubini, ed. D Balestracci et al., Siena 2012, v. I, p. 519-531). R. Bassani's article (L'omicidio di Ranuccio Tomassoni per mano di Michelangelo da Caravaggio', in Rivista storica del Lazio, I, 1993, n. 1, p. 87-111), and his and F. Bellini's book Caravaggio Assassino (1994) were important steps in this evaluation of the milieu in which Caravaggio found himself in the Campo Marzio, where he had recently taken up residence in the Vicolo San Biagio. Gio: Francesco' Tomassoni had been named a year earlier capo Rione, and these authors have amply demonstrated that their gang were used to enforcing their interests. The Tomassonis, sons of a high ranking military officer from Terni, were not only able to take into custody Petronio Troppa after the affray but also to secure, a month later, the banishment of Caravaggio's other supporter Onorio Longhi, who did not get it lifted to return to Rome until 1611, and the bando capitale on the painter in absentia. Their authority in the rione did not stand in the way of such bullying, indeed this was the nature of their role as pimps in a quarter of Rome in which the cortigiane were confined by statute, and their connections ensured that not only would Caravaggio be subject to a capital sentence, but also that he would never again have a tranquil existence.

As Prof De Anna recognised, not only on the continent, but in England there were laws that identified this kind of event as one of chance medley, even when it was the result of a duel, like when in 1765 the 5th Lord Byron killed his cousin William Chaworth (who survived long enough to describe their duel in a closed room as an 'unfortunate accident'). Lord Byron was found guilty only of manslaughter and released, for there was as strong a tradition of this version of 'homicide arising from a sudden quarrel or fight' in England as there was under Roman law. Given the documentation it is fanciful to assume that this was a formal duel or, as some have suggested, that Caravaggio was seeking to castrate his opponent when he stabbed him in the groin. It does seem as though Caravaggio's nature was apprehensive and he found it hard to get through a day without some sort of challenge, prompting people to attack him just as he seems to have attacked others, for motives that still remain a mystery. Rather than characterising him as a murderer, it is time to reflect on how he saw the world differently, because this change of perception was his chief legacy. Of the Tomassoni brothers the pimp Ranuccio was one who had not borne arms or had military experience, while Giovanni Francesco was a very experienced soldier who lashed out at the artist after he had scored the hit on his brother. It was evidently mere chance that it was Ranuccio who got the mortal blow, while the near fatal wounds that his other opponent, Caravaggio's supporter, Petronio Troppa, (as well as those the artist himself sustained) meant that he could not get away from the scene. Mgr Sandro Corradini uncovered documents showing that Ranuccio's widow Lavinia Giugoli abandoned their three-year old daughter to the care of one Cesare Pontoni, a lawyer friend of Ranuccio's from Camerino, who had always shown 'no little love and benevolence' towards the child, while the mother was considering (eight days after her husband's death) getting married again. Her brothers Ignazio and Federico had also participated in the affray, and were banished at the same time as Caravaggio (17th July 1606), so it does look as though the honour of Ranuccio's young wife could have prompted the affray as much as a difference over a ball-game.

It is still remarkable that the Knights of Malta were so anxious not to lose the painter when he eventually arrived in the island, it speaks volumes of Caravaggio's manifest talents, while the connections the Tomassoni had in high places had meant that he could never again sleep quietly. It was not the authorities in Malta, or even in Rome that stood in the way of his pardon, but the vendetta of these malviventi. Nearly a century ago the psychologIst Mariano Luigi Patrizi described Caravaggio as Un pittore criminale - ricostruzione psicologica (1921) without actually exploring the psychological aspects of his case, merely perpetuating the myth of a violent man, which has become almost a caricature.We do not get any closer to understanding the difficult character that Caravaggio undoubtedly possessed by continuing the negative profile that these people inevitably underscored, for their own purposes.